Focused on repositories for storing digital images and other multimedia files Funded by UK JISC and CURL Project partners were: Leeds (lead site) Birmingham University London School of Economics University College London Ran June 2005 – August 2007 The MIDESS Project

Focused on repositories for storing digital images and other multimedia files

Funded by UK JISC and CURL

Project partners were:

Leeds (lead site)

Birmingham University

London School of Economics

University College London

Ran June 2005 – August 2007

To create demonstrator repositories at each partner site and populate with sample content To explore the options for sharing and re-using content between institutions To investigate the main IPR issues for this type of content To establish appropriate metadata standards for this content To explore the role of the repository within the institutional information architecture Project Objectives

To create demonstrator repositories at each partner site and populate with sample content

To explore the options for sharing and re-using content between institutions

To investigate the main IPR issues for this type of content

To establish appropriate metadata standards for this content

To explore the role of the repository within the institutional information architecture

A set of documents which can guide and inform other repository implementations: User requirements specification based on an extensive survey of potential users Technical and functional requirements specification Case studies of implementation on 3 different software platforms Major reports on Data preservation issues Enterprise integration and information architecture Metadata standards IPR + Investigation of OAI-PMH and METS for exchanging data between multimedia repositories (Work-packages 9 & 10) Project Outputs

A set of documents which can guide and inform other repository implementations:

User requirements specification based on an extensive survey of potential users

Is it really different? More diverse than “eprints” More variation in size and use Supporting various agendas: research, L&T, preservation … More diverse metadata Need to use a wider range of schemas But users Don’t care about technical issues Don’t make the same distinctions between types of content Just want what they need, wherever it is And don’t want to reinvent the wheel if somebody has already done the work Multimedia content

Is it really different?

More diverse than “eprints”

More variation in size and use

Supporting various agendas: research, L&T, preservation …

More diverse metadata

Need to use a wider range of schemas

But users

Don’t care about technical issues

Don’t make the same distinctions between types of content

Just want what they need, wherever it is

And don’t want to reinvent the wheel if somebody has already done the work

Configured cross-searching of OPAC and repository at Leeds using Z39.50 Used III Millennium LMS client – only limited configuration options Conclusions: Field labels designed for MARC sometimes seemed odd when applied to the matching dublin core element URL back to the repository object failed to display (though it was passed) so no indication of how to access the object Construction of searches very different between OPAC and repository collections Better results using a federated search portal? (not available at the time) Raised awareness of issues around information architecture – what is to be searched from where (and how) What did we do? Z39.50

Configured cross-searching of OPAC and repository at Leeds using Z39.50

Used III Millennium LMS client – only limited configuration options

Conclusions:

Field labels designed for MARC sometimes seemed odd when applied to the matching dublin core element

URL back to the repository object failed to display (though it was passed) so no indication of how to access the object

Construction of searches very different between OPAC and repository collections

Better results using a federated search portal? (not available at the time)

Raised awareness of issues around information architecture – what is to be searched from where (and how)

Institutional What is to be searched from where (and how)? What protocols need to be supported? What interactions are required >> system integration issues National / international What groupings of services/objects do our users wish to access How do we move beyond the current focus on research outputs within the HE community? Does the format of the objects matter? Information architecture: issues

Institutional

What is to be searched from where (and how)?

What protocols need to be supported?

What interactions are required >> system integration issues

National / international

What groupings of services/objects do our users wish to access

How do we move beyond the current focus on research outputs within the HE community?

Does the format of the objects matter?

Harvested individual records from each system Issues around harvesting (service provider) Conducted functionality testing of each system using the University of Cape Town Dept. of Computer Science site Tried using METS as the metadata format carried over the OAI-PMH protocol What did we do? OAI-PMH

Harvested individual records from each system

Issues around harvesting (service provider)

Conducted functionality testing of each system using the University of Cape Town Dept. of Computer Science site

Tried using METS as the metadata format carried over the OAI-PMH protocol

Firewall restrictions Support for flow control and similar compliance issues around technical compliance Access to the object – is a URL included? Metadata schemas Collections within the repository – what is to be harvested? Handling updates and deletions Some issues in using OAI-PMH

Firewall restrictions

Support for flow control and similar compliance issues around technical compliance

The standard is flexible so can be used in many different contexts The standard is so that it cannot, in itself, guarantee interoperability! And when it does, the receiving system must be able to process all the data contained within the object: Different schemas for descriptive metadata Other metadata e.g. preservation or rights Some issues in using METS flexible

The standard is flexible so can be used in many different contexts

The standard is so that it cannot, in itself, guarantee interoperability!

And when it does, the receiving system must be able to process all the data contained within the object:

Different schemas for descriptive metadata

Other metadata e.g. preservation or rights

Standards and protocols: What are the implications of handling multimedia objects? What application profiles need developing? What will be the impact of new standards such as OAI-ORE? Repository functionality: What are the service drivers associated with various categories of digital object? What developments are required in repository platforms for proper handling of multimedia? Information architecture and service integration: What are the key issues regarding information architecture which we need to address to meet our users’ needs? How do repositories relate to and integrate with VLEs? How do we integrate multimedia into a national/international information architecture? Further work needed on …

Standards and protocols:

What are the implications of handling multimedia objects?

What application profiles need developing?

What will be the impact of new standards such as OAI-ORE?

Repository functionality:

What are the service drivers associated with various categories of digital object?

What developments are required in repository platforms for proper handling of multimedia?

Information architecture and service integration:

What are the key issues regarding information architecture which we need to address to meet our users’ needs?

How do repositories relate to and integrate with VLEs?

How do we integrate multimedia into a national/international information architecture?